Keene Corp. v. United States
Headline: Asbestos company’s attempt to shift costs blocked as Court affirms statute bars the claims court from hearing duplicate suits when similar cases were pending in other courts.
Holding: The Court held that 28 U.S.C. §1500 bars the Court of Federal Claims from hearing Keene’s suits because similar claims were pending in other courts when Keene filed, so the complaints were properly dismissed.
- Prevents companies from pursuing duplicate claims in the claims court when similar suits were pending elsewhere.
- Affirms dismissal of Keene’s asbestos-related contract and takings claims in the claims court.
- Leaves Congress, not courts, to change the statute’s limits.
Summary
Background
Keene Corporation, a maker of insulation products that used asbestos, faced thousands of injury suits from people claiming harm. Keene sued the United States twice in the Court of Federal Claims seeking money tied to government contracts and refunds the Government allegedly recouped from injured claimants. Each time Keene filed in the claims court, a related suit or third-party claim involving the United States remained pending in another federal court.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether 28 U.S.C. § 1500 prevents the Court of Federal Claims from hearing a case when a similar suit is already pending elsewhere at the time of filing. Relying on the statute’s long history and earlier cases, the majority held that jurisdiction is measured when a claim is filed and that § 1500 bars the claims court from taking a claim “for or in respect to” one already pending in another court, even if the legal theories differ. The Court therefore affirmed dismissal of Keene’s complaints.
Real world impact
After this decision, companies cannot pursue essentially the same claim in the Court of Federal Claims if a similar suit against the Government or its agents was pending in another court when the claim was filed. The ruling encourages parties to choose a single forum and sends policy questions about overlapping suits back to Congress.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens dissented, arguing the claims court should be allowed to proceed if no other suit is pending when the court actually decides the motion, and he urged following earlier cases that allowed a party to elect a forum before trial.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?